Paul Grogan said:

Agreed.  This is exactly how it is (correction: WAS, when we played with the original rules) in our games as well.

3 leads within easy reach in one turn? ---

I'd love to play against other players who would let this happen

Are you sure the conspiracy is broken and not the way you approach this particular game?

Regards

John

Nhoj said:

"Let" happen...?  Could you expand on this statement, please?

I've only ever played with three players and even then it is all too easy to "let" this happen.  With five players I imagine it would be almost impossible to avoid!

The proposed variant is designed specifically to prevent "letting" this happen.  In fact, we've been using this variant for the past few games and it works wonders: now you can't just place the leads near yourself and chain them for the easy 3-lead grab, but instead you have to try and place them as far away from others as possible (or use them as bait) and make sure that they *don't* form chains for your opponents.

I haven't played enough to prove any theories, but puzzle-at-all costs sounds like a groupthink issue.

I agree, there are a lot of VP's available from the puzzle, but they are not proportional to the amount of pieces you place,

only the amount of 5 chains you connect.

The Murder IS directly proportional to the amount of evidence you place, and while each individual piece is not worth much,  the combined results of all your placement may be.

Has anyone TRIED not focusing on puzzle pieces (except to grab the ends of rows when available) and placing more evidence early on, and has this been PROVEN to be a losing strategy, as I can see a situation where one player does this, gets about the same amount of puzzle VP's as the focused players, but has a lot more placed evidence by the end of the game.

Admittedly once the twilight shift pieces run out, placing tiles becomes a VERY efficient use of time/leads

Try heading towards the player who goes after you, might give them second thoughts about placing all leads nearby.

It's not a group-think issue - it's common sense (maybe our group just has a lot more common sense than most).

The VPs from the conspiracy are only available while there are still 5-in-a-rows available to complete.  Once they're gone, they're gone.  So it's common sense to devote all energy into getting as many of those 4VP chips as you can towards the beginning of the game, before anyone else does, and then only afterwards dedicate energy towards those VPs that are only available at the end of the game.

The murder is absolutely NOT proportional to the amount of evidence you place!  Try telling that to the guy who spends two whole weeks placing nothing but +1 evidence tokens who then gets it all undone by the one player who spent 2 Time placing a surprise witness token and is beaten by the other player who spent 2 Time and was lucky enough to draw the +5 evidence chit.  The murder is a complete lottery and has very little to do with how much work each detective puts into it, which just adds to the reason why you should concentrate on the conspiracy first - those VPs are more "certain".

Heading towards the player who goes after you doesn't help, for the reason that if you grab all the leads in the area around that player, then that player will have no leads to pass to you to place during his turn, meaning no additional leads near you next turn (this is all providing, of course, that the other player doesn't see you coming and grab all the leads for himself before you can arrive).  You've done one other player out of leads, but then you've got no leads to pick up for yourself next turn either, which actually works out worse for you as a strategy as you're allowing players 3, 4 and 5 - the ones that *aren't* persuing this strategy - to move further into the lead.

It may be a form of group-think, but it's group-think that the mechanics of the game encourage.

Bleached Lizard said:

So you admit that it is group think or not?  I'm confused. 

I have to admit I've not played as much as you but it would always be my choice to place leads as far away from EVERYBODY as possible.  This is a competetive game and if you are not getting a turn for a while make it as difficult as possible.

It would also be my choice to not play to the puzzle as often as possible, but to spread my options among the various routes to VPs.  If other players are going after the conspiracy - hammer their private lives - this is sure to give them a reality check.

There is luck in this game (to your lottery comment) but it could not create such an appealing 'noir' like tale if it was pre-programmed.

However, I haven't tried your variant so I'm not going to comment on the game it produces - suffice it to say that the current rules (with the exception of the 1st player thing) are doing fine at the moment for me 

as usual ymmv

Regards

John 

Nhoj said:

It's a form of group-think, but not in the usual way that group-think is considered.  Normally in group-think situations, if one player were to break away from the group-think strategy, they would put themselves at an advantage.  In this situation, however, they only put one other player at a disadvantage as well as putting themselves at that same disadvantage, leaving the other players at an advantage by comparison.

You would even choose to put the leads as far away from *yourself* as possible?  Why on earth would you do that?

It would also be my choice to split my efforts between multiple different aspects of the game... if each aspect were equally desirable and the game were balanced, but unfortunately they're not.

I don't mind luck in a game - I'm an Ameritrasher after all.  However, the degree to which luck is involved in the murder lottery is a little extreme.  It could have been much better if the evidence tokens were all numbered just 4-6 or thereabouts (in roughly equal amounts), with no negatives.  This would have allowed an amount of uncertainty in the murder investigation but without the huge swings that the current system produces.

Bleached Lizard said:

Bleached Lizard said:

Ok, looking at the puzzle at start of game, Wow look, 48 VP's available, as well as other perks, it would certainly seem to be a no brainer.

BUT...

Firstly sheer quantity is not as important as outscoring your opponents, 48 VP split 4 ways is effectively 0 VP, added to this the person who adds the most pieces is not guarranteed the biggest share, only row ends count, and there can be no more than 9 scoring tiles, less than half of the 24 placed.

It's perfectly feasible for 2 players to do the bulk of the puzzle, and 2 other players to get as many vp's by only taking the valuable spots.

Also in most games not all pieces will be able to be placed, if one corner is missing 48vp's drops to 36vp's, one more and it's 28vp's, from what i've seen it's more likely that 3-4 pieces will be missing by game end, 20 total puzzle vp's is not at all unlikely.

Assuming 4 players and 28vp's, a player only needs to place 1-2 tiles (in scoring spots) in order to get their quota of the puzzle vp's, giving them more free actions to get the scoring items the puzzle links to, more placed evidence, more light/dark card play and better personal story development.  Letting the other players use up all the shift pieces gives you better returns on the actions you do spend to place pieces when you do get round to it.  You certainly do not need to place whenever possible to get your share of the points.

OK, The puzzle does get very appealing once the shift pieces are used up, letting someone else do the groundwork so you can get more valuable returns later seems like a good approach (IMO) and goes against the theory of "must place all pieces immediately"

Has anyone tried this approach v.s. puzzle heavy players?

Bleached Lizard said:

Hmm!  Maybe this a rule thingy - surely the person placing the lead is not next to go?  And so placing it close to yourself is a bit obvious and a bit dumb, as someone else could get there first?  In one of my groups I would be seen to be feathering my own nest and get dumped on BIG TIME

Also - there are only three leads per player - so how do you go about engineering that you'll get ALL 3 Leads in your own turn.  I struggle to get two mostly!

Maybe you play with a nice group.  Any of my gaming buddies would spot a ploy like deploying my resources to the puzzle and hammer me mercilessly until I looked like the drawing on the back of the character cards!

Regards as always

Nhoj

Lets just clarify things.

Getting 3 leads in a turn is not normal.  It is possible but not every turn.  The average seems to be 2.

The discussion seems to have got out of hand with certain things.  My basic points are

1. Placing a puzzle piece is way more powerful than placing a single piece of evidence
- Placing 1 piece of evidence on 1 suspect generally has a small effect on things, if any at all.  Of course, sometimes it does.  If you are lucky enough to draw the right ones and put them in the right places it will affect things.

- Placing a piece of the puzzle lets you
a) Get the bonus on the back of the card.  The shifting is ok.  The "gain a free favour" is simply amazing.  Normally you have to travel somewhere and spend 2 time to get these, but here they are free.  The baggage is also awesome, compared to what you have to normally do to get one of them.
b) Place a piece on the board and really influence what gets linked up at the end.  Or cause dead ends to completely mess up another players links they want
c) Get the free bonus on the front on the tile.  This includes moving a lead yourself, which is really good, snatching it away from someone else and placing it near yourself, getting a dropship pass (awesome), placing a hit, or even placing another free puzzle piece, etc. 
d) Possibly score one or more conspiracy tokens.

All in all, placing a puzzle piece is far superior to placing a piece of evidence.  You get nothing directly for placing a piece of evidence.

Lets look in more detail.  Assume the first pile of puzzle pieces have gone.

I follow up a lead.  I could draw 1 random piece of evidence and get something rubbish.  Or, I could place a middle puzzle piece and get a free favour, as well as possibly extending the links I want or messing up someone else.  I might also get a dropship, or some other goodies.

Absolutely no contest at all.

This is a lot of groups after they have played it once or twice have players who realise this and therefore the conspiracy gets completed early on.  If a player decided not to try with the puzzle (for whatever reason), this would obviously slow down the completion of the puzzle, but it means the players who do complete the conspiracy are normally way ahead on points because they've been getting all the cool free bonuses for every piece they place.

But to get a piece with a favour on the back requires digging deeper?  So uses up 2 leads.

If your players start on the puzzle - HAMMER THEIR PERSONAL LIVES RIGHT AWAY!  This will stop them

Nhoj 

Sheesh.  
I dont mean taking a piece from pile 3 at the start of the game.  
Yes, you are correct, if done at the start of the game, this would take 2 digging deepers and therefore 3 leads. 

I'm saying that once the first pile is empty, you could place a piece of evidence, or a puzzle with a free favour (far better)
And once the 2nd pile is empty, you could place a piece of evidence, or a puzzle with a free baggage (far better)

And your other comment doesnt hold any weight with me.  That would be nice in theory, but it just doesnt work like that, and you could say the same for someone who follows up leads and places evidence.
 

OK - I'll try again.

In my gaming group we have a saying "What do points make?-----Reprisals!"

The conspiracy is the only certain way of making points on a daily (every second day) basis.  Any player seen to be ahead in the group with these V points gets picked on.  It ain't pretty but that's the way we work.

You guys play too nice - in a 'let's all help each other complete the conspiracy' kind of way.  Lord knows how you would cope if you came up against our level of visciousness

Think of the Russian who got a wish

'Whatever you get your neighbour gets double.  "I wish for my eye to be put out"

In our group he'd be a woose

Regards

Nhoj

Nhoj said:

This is the same question I had.  When evidence is placed, at least one other person is going to get a turn before the person who places it.  I've only played in 4-person games, so maybe it was easier to find locations that were further away from other players.  

I've seen turns where three pieces of evidence were picked up, but it was a rarity.  Even gathing two pieces didn't happen very often.

Anytime I've placed evidence near me, it was generally taken by the time my turn comes around, though it's not uncommon for someone else to have put a different piece within reach on my go.  When I'm placing evidence, I'll use it as lure, trying to bait another player to chase the lead to a location where I can use a dark card on them.

Admittedly, the conspiracy offers up some nice rewards, but I've done my share to act as a gadfly and shut paths down.

Maybe after a few more sessions I'll find the need to implement changes, but I'm just not ready to yet.

I've played 5 times with 3 players.  With the rules as written I think 9 times out of 10, the lead that they placed was picked up by themselves. People are too spread out in a 3 player game.  In 4 / 5, I can see people picking up other peoples leads more often.

Maybe the "not adjacent district" rule need only apply for 3 players?